a)

The issue that is to be discussed in this particular scenario would be whether Joshua would succeed in becoming the registered proprietor and be subjected to the mortgages of the land. Apart from that, the legal position of Joshua concerning the title in the land and the Maxwell’s ownership would also be discussed.

A Certificate of the Title is considered to be a person’s record for interests of the rights which are considered to affect the land. The Certificate of Title is considered to issue the Registrar of the Titles for the individuals who are considered to be entitled for it. An example of such would be the mortgagee or the registered proprietor. This certificate is considered to show the creation or the formation date and in addition to such the registrations and other kind of recordings are also made or formed in the Register during that time. These are considered to include the different names of the registered proprietor or the proprietors and any other interests, which are there for the mortgages or the covenants and other caveats. These registrations are considered to be in the register and such have a guarantee from the government.

A caveat is considered to be a formal notice which would be for a warning which has been lodged against the title of any property. These also prohibits or prevents any individual from being involved as the registered proprietor or owner from being able to deal in the property.

Mortgages are considered to be when any owner of the land is considered to borrow money from any other individual who is considered to be the lender then such lender is considered to require some kind of a grant from the landowner as a security over the land. Such a security is considered to be known as a mortgage and this security is considered to entitle the lender to sell the land in case the borrower is not able to repay the money, which had been agreed between the various parties.

In this particular scenario, it can be understood that, Maxwell is considered to be a registered proprietor of a land which is considered to be under the Real Property Act and he had borrowed some money from Charlie in order to invest such in a dairy farm. The memorandum of mortgage was considered to be completed and finished by Maxwell but the certificate of the title was mislaid. Maxwell had promised Charlie that the money borrowed would be returned to Charlie soon and therefore, Charlie based on the promise had not lodged a caveat. Maxwell had also gone into an agreement with Pauline and did not inform Pauline about the agreement with Charlie. The certificate of the title was considered to be missing and therefore, Pauline had made their agreement into a deed and then lodged a caveat over to the property. Maxwell’s son had found the certificate of title and with that used it to get some quick funds and therefore sold such to Louise by tricking Maxwell into signing a blank transfer. Louise had sold it to Joshua before registering her ownership. Joshua had the certificate of the title but when such documents were presented to the Land and Property Information it could not be lodged as Pauline had already filed a caveat. Caveats are considered to be registered on title to any property and the potential purchasers are considered to be notified of such while being shown a property. As the caveat is considered to be a statutory injunction which has been provided under the Real Property Act, 1900. As it can be seen in the case of Deutsch v Rodkin [2012] VSC 450. Under the Real Property Act and section 141 fraudulent acts are considered to be deemed as indictable offences and would be subjected to criminal penalties. Louise gave Joshua the certificate of title and they were unaware of the fact that the land was transferred to them fraudulently and in addition to such they were unaware that a caveat had been lodged. Therefore, due to such Joshua could claim for remedies but would not be a mortgagee for the land as such belonged to Maxwell who was a registered proprietor.

b)

In case of a mortgage, it is considered to be a type of security which is taken by the lender from the borrower as a guarantee for the payment of the money which has been borrowed by the mortgagee. A mortgagee is considered to have some obligations where the individual or the person is not considered to enter into any mortgage without being able to verify it first about the authority of the anticipated and intended mortgagor in order to enter into any mortgage, which would be in accordance with that of the verification of any authority guidelines. The maximum penalty under this would be 10,000 dollars or any imprisonment which would be for two years. A mortgagee is considered to retain a copy of some documents which would be used for the objective of fulfilling the obligations which would be under that of the subsection for a duration which has been prescribed through the regulations.

In this particular scenario, the mortgage taken by Maxwell from Charlie was for investing in a dairy farm but it was not a legal agreement or a deed. It was based on trustworthiness. On the other hand, mortgage with Pauline was with an agreement and Pauline had also lodged a caveat over the property. Therefore, Pauline’s interest would be taken into consideration if Maxwell went bankrupt since Pauline had protected interest in the property. In both the cases, the Certificate of Title was considered to be missing and not provided with. Nevertheless, Pauline had evidenced the agreement in a deed. In addition to such a caveat had also been lodged for the property where the deed was considered to be the evidence of the interest. Therefore, in conclusion, if Joshua is considered to be unsuccessful then the mortgage with Pauline would have to be satisfied first in case Maxwell is considered to go bankrupt.